relayer —

NASA to examine commercializing Mars communication relays

Orbit Mars, send data from rovers back to Earth.

Today, NASA announced that it's issuing a Request for Information that seeks parties, either academic or commercial, who are willing to set up a communications relay orbiting Mars. Should the agency like the information it gets, it could extend its current fee-for-service approach well beyond Earth's orbit.

Because of weight and power restrictions, the hardware that we've landed on Mars can't carry high-bandwidth communication devices that can reach Earth (it does, however, carry lower-bandwidth hardware that can establish a direct connection). Instead, missions like the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has its own science instruments, also carry communications hardware that lets them receive high volumes of data from the planet's surface and quickly send it back to Earth.

MRO is the most recent hardware that serves this purpose, but it's already nearly a decade old; Odyssey, its fellow relay, is even older. Fortunately, the MAVEN mission, which arrives this year, will also have relay capabilities, as will the ESA's ExoMars orbiter, which should arrive in 2016.

Beyond that hardware, however, NASA is open to ideas. These include both a change in technology—the agency recently tested laser-based optical communications with a Moon probe—and a change in approach. The latter could include paying someone else, either a private company or a university, to run dedicated communications hardware.

Latest Ars Video >

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

Why? Here on Earth? We already got GPS GLONASS Galileo and Compass. Why throw a fifth system into it? On Mars? An even bigger why? We land one vehicle on Mars once every few years. We figure out where we are pretty quickly. And then drive no more than a couple of miles from where we landed.

Laser of course allows for way tighter beaming of energy, but its pretty hard to steer an optical beam vs. a radar beam. I wonder about the far microwave region though. 150-200 GHz or so should still be beamformable with reasonable efficiency with near-future SiGe transistors and gives you significantly tighter beams than current microwave techniques.

Why? Here on Earth? We already got GPS GLONASS Galileo and Compass. Why throw a fifth system into it? On Mars? An even bigger why? We land one vehicle on Mars once every few years. We figure out where we are pretty quickly. And then drive no more than a couple of miles from where we landed.

It makes sense to get a communications satellite in orbit around Mars. Presently just about everything headed that way has to do communications backhaul as a secondary requirement, which essentially wastes weight, space and power better used for the primary mission. If we're lucky, they'll finally get approval to build an interplanetary version of the laser communications experiment that debued on LADEE and was recently tested on the ISS.

Typical government agency. Why do it at cost when a private company can charge the government more and make a profit?

Huh? What is the basis for "at cost" in this scenario, and how is NASA achieving it? Especially without giving any money to a private company?

The whole reason NASA is considering this is because their similar endeavors with COTS have ended up saving them money. It's the traditional cost-plus contracting that turns NASA designs/specs into actual physical hardware which has made so much of what they do so expensive, and results in enormous profits for the contractors.

How would a commercial company make any money operating a GPS constellation? Do you envision a subscription model like satellite TV, where you get a decoder card for your Garmin and pay a monthly bill? Who would buy that?

Typical government agency. Why do it at cost when a private company can charge the government more and make a profit?

Huh? What is the basis for "at cost" in this scenario, and how is NASA achieving it? Especially without giving any money to a private company?

The whole reason NASA is considering this is because their similar endeavors with COTS have ended up saving them money. It's the traditional cost-plus contracting that turns NASA designs/specs into actual physical hardware which has made so much of what they do so expensive, and results in enormous profits for the contractors.

That's for the hardware, and that's been true since NASA began. What they're describing here is operating the satellite once it's in Mars orbit. When NASA doesn't do that themselves it's usually done by someone like the JPL - again, at cost - not by someone like Lockheed or Boeing. Yes, Boeing had the contract on the Space Shuttle, but that was to maintain and service the hardware. From launch to landing it was operated - at cost - by NASA.

Typical government agency. Why do it at cost when a private company can charge the government more and make a profit?

Huh? What is the basis for "at cost" in this scenario, and how is NASA achieving it? Especially without giving any money to a private company?

The whole reason NASA is considering this is because their similar endeavors with COTS have ended up saving them money. It's the traditional cost-plus contracting that turns NASA designs/specs into actual physical hardware which has made so much of what they do so expensive, and results in enormous profits for the contractors.

That's for the hardware, and that's been true since NASA began. What they're describing here is operating the satellite once it's in Mars orbit. When NASA doesn't do that themselves it's usually done by someone like the JPL - again, at cost - not by someone like Lockheed or Boeing. Yes, Boeing had the contract on the Space Shuttle, but that was to maintain and service the hardware. From launch to landing it was operated - at cost - by NASA.

Okay, so it's specifically the operational aspect that you object to. It's not entirely true that all operations are done by NASA with no commercial support; Malin Space Science Systems for example also engages in paid operational support for their systems on the Mars rovers.

Anyway, why are you so certain that NASA's cost is less than what a commercial provider would be able to charge? And if none of the submissions can provide competitive operations, why are you sure that NASA would choose one anyway? The whole point here is cost savings. If the cheapest way to get it done would be to buy the orbiter and then run operations themselves, why wouldn't they? But why assume that's the best option?

How would a commercial company make any money operating a GPS constellation? Do you envision a subscription model like satellite TV, where you get a decoder card for your Garmin and pay a monthly bill? Who would buy that?

I wouldn't want to be the one selling it (especially since cell/wifi based location has gotten a lot better); but that's basically how the military GPS users did it back when we were trying to keep the high-precision signal away from civilians.

I don't know how robust the system would have been against pirates, since they didn't have too much incentive to try; but you did need the appropriate hardware and crypto keys to receive the high precision data.

This sounds like the type of thing that does make sense to privatize. The requirements should be straightforward, X bandwidth, Y satellite coverage, Z frequency and modulation. As compared to a science mission with changing requirements, uncertain timescales, etc.

A mars GPS system sounds amazing, currently I believe they use inertial navigation corrected by flyovers from the MRO. With just 3 satellites they should be able to get accurate positional fixes multiple times per day. GPS only requires 2 satellites to determine a position.

I feel like this is pretty squarely aimed at SpaceX, who else has a mars capable rocket in their lineup at this point?

And when do we get a deep space relay system for Jupiter? With three planets (earth, mars, jupiter) primed for communications, we should be able to reach anywhere in the solar system at any time with high bandwidth supporting currently far-fetched science missions.

This could eventually be the basis for getting space telescopes placed in lagrangian orbits proceeding or following Jupiter. I think the Hubble Space Telescope averages around 1.5mbit-- a next generation telescope will need far more than this.

Well, considering that the distance to mars is ONLY 1.8×10^-5 light years, I'd say it would essentially be free then.

Comes out to .000000036 cents, I think.

Sorry, $50/lightyear/MB. Seems like the interplanetary metered system will be something like that. Please note that data transmissions require relayed signals, and as such both outgoing and received transmissions are charged.

Also, your math is wrong 1.8×10^-5 * (50) is actually .0009. So we actually need to raise the rate by a full order of magnitude, we will say $500. Sorry. Due to a billing error, we forgot to add a zero.

Based on the prorated monthly adjustment your new bill for your measly 4GB plan will be $36.

However, due to the FCC charges for interplanetary retransmission and maintenance, as well as the moon bypass charge, your monthly data cost total is $176.

It is emphasized that this RFI is for planning and information purposes only and is NOT to be construed as a commitment by the Government to enter into a contractual agreement, nor will the Government pay for information solicited. If NASA decides to proceed with a new procurement or announcement, we will synopsize our intent on FedBizOpps

Quote:

-- Description of a recommended business model for commercialization of Mars relay services, offering advantages to NASA, while also providing appropriate return-on-investment to the service provider. Elements of this model should address the timeline of investments by the service provider for development of service capability and any corresponding timeline of service payments by NASA. Specifically, can the service provider fully fund the implementation and delivery of the service-providing orbiter(s) to Mars in return for service fees collected during the operational phase, or would NASA be required to subsidize the implementation cost?

NASA is doing a sensible thing. It is possible for a third party operator to do it at a lower cost than NASA, by virtue of overprovisioning. To maintain a stable link to Mars, the Earth based recipient would likely be an orbiting satellite itself, as opposed to a ground station, which would be cheaper to use if a commercial provider was also using it for Earth based services. Additionally, the staff in ops could theoretically monitor more than one communication system thus lowering staffing cost.

It is possible, so NASA is exploring it while making no commitment and little expense. They're also making sure that, by virtue of having a business plan suggested, there is actual cost savings. What's there to not like?

This sounds like the type of thing that does make sense to privatize. The requirements should be straightforward, X bandwidth, Y satellite coverage, Z frequency and modulation. As compared to a science mission with changing requirements, uncertain timescales, etc.

A mars GPS system sounds amazing, currently I believe they use inertial navigation corrected by flyovers from the MRO. With just 3 satellites they should be able to get accurate positional fixes multiple times per day. GPS only requires 2 satellites to determine a position.

I feel like this is pretty squarely aimed at SpaceX, who else has a mars capable rocket in their lineup at this point?

And when do we get a deep space relay system for Jupiter? With three planets (earth, mars, jupiter) primed for communications, we should be able to reach anywhere in the solar system at any time with high bandwidth supporting currently far-fetched science missions.

This could eventually be the basis for getting space telescopes placed in lagrangian orbits proceeding or following Jupiter. I think the Hubble Space Telescope averages around 1.5mbit-- a next generation telescope will need far more than this.

I beg to differ. What happens if it fails or breaks down?

A private organisation could decide to cancel the contract on "commercial grounds", and then NASA could be left with nothing

This sounds like the type of thing that does make sense to privatize. The requirements should be straightforward, X bandwidth, Y satellite coverage, Z frequency and modulation. As compared to a science mission with changing requirements, uncertain timescales, etc.

A mars GPS system sounds amazing, currently I believe they use inertial navigation corrected by flyovers from the MRO. With just 3 satellites they should be able to get accurate positional fixes multiple times per day. GPS only requires 2 satellites to determine a position.

I feel like this is pretty squarely aimed at SpaceX, who else has a mars capable rocket in their lineup at this point?

And when do we get a deep space relay system for Jupiter? With three planets (earth, mars, jupiter) primed for communications, we should be able to reach anywhere in the solar system at any time with high bandwidth supporting currently far-fetched science missions.

This could eventually be the basis for getting space telescopes placed in lagrangian orbits proceeding or following Jupiter. I think the Hubble Space Telescope averages around 1.5mbit-- a next generation telescope will need far more than this.

I beg to differ. What happens if it fails or breaks down?

A private organization could decide to cancel the contract on "commercial grounds", and then NASA could be left with nothing

Maybe, but les we forget the article says, commercial or academic, and the latter is less likely to do such a thing.

If we are going to go all out on privatization, get some bids on a permanent moon base. I don't really care how we do it, but I want to see an American moon base in my life time. Add on a contract on a heavy lifter rail gun to Mars while you are at it.

This sounds like the type of thing that does make sense to privatize. The requirements should be straightforward, X bandwidth, Y satellite coverage, Z frequency and modulation. As compared to a science mission with changing requirements, uncertain timescales, etc.

A mars GPS system sounds amazing, currently I believe they use inertial navigation corrected by flyovers from the MRO. With just 3 satellites they should be able to get accurate positional fixes multiple times per day. GPS only requires 2 satellites to determine a position.

I feel like this is pretty squarely aimed at SpaceX, who else has a mars capable rocket in their lineup at this point?

And when do we get a deep space relay system for Jupiter? With three planets (earth, mars, jupiter) primed for communications, we should be able to reach anywhere in the solar system at any time with high bandwidth supporting currently far-fetched science missions.

This could eventually be the basis for getting space telescopes placed in lagrangian orbits proceeding or following Jupiter. I think the Hubble Space Telescope averages around 1.5mbit-- a next generation telescope will need far more than this.

I beg to differ. What happens if it fails or breaks down?

A private organisation could decide to cancel the contract on "commercial grounds", and then NASA could be left with nothing

Then NASA can sue them for breach of contract and finally get some money!

Why? Here on Earth? We already got GPS GLONASS Galileo and Compass. Why throw a fifth system into it? On Mars? An even bigger why? We land one vehicle on Mars once every few years. We figure out where we are pretty quickly. And then drive no more than a couple of miles from where we landed.

Look up some of the scientific uses for GPS.

Care to give some pointers? Anything to support that GPS on Mars is anything but an idiotic pointless no-go joke?

A laser system makes more sense if lighter weight and higher bandwidth are needed. Can the existing Deep Space Network radio receivers be retrofitted with laser gear or would a new, denser network of stations be needed?

Why? Here on Earth? We already got GPS GLONASS Galileo and Compass. Why throw a fifth system into it? On Mars? An even bigger why? We land one vehicle on Mars once every few years. We figure out where we are pretty quickly. And then drive no more than a couple of miles from where we landed.

Look up some of the scientific uses for GPS.

Care to give some pointers? Anything to support that GPS on Mars is anything but an idiotic pointless no-go joke?

Tracking of Mars plate tectonics for starters. GPS radio occultation for another. Also you may want to read up before putting your foot in your mouth.

Why? Here on Earth? We already got GPS GLONASS Galileo and Compass. Why throw a fifth system into it? On Mars? An even bigger why? We land one vehicle on Mars once every few years. We figure out where we are pretty quickly. And then drive no more than a couple of miles from where we landed.

Look up some of the scientific uses for GPS.

Care to give some pointers? Anything to support that GPS on Mars is anything but an idiotic pointless no-go joke?

Tracking of Mars plate tectonics for starters. GPS radio occultation for another. Also you may want to read up before putting your foot in your mouth.

GNSS radio occultation studies are pointless on Mars because it has no atmosphere to speak of. We can do much better those studies on Earth.

How do you suggest we study Mars pate tectonics with GPS? I'm not even going to bother asking why on Earth we need to...

As always, one thing to consider is investment vs returns. With anything Mars related, returns will be infinitesimal compared to ANY amount of investment.

How would a commercial company make any money operating a GPS constellation? Do you envision a subscription model like satellite TV, where you get a decoder card for your Garmin and pay a monthly bill? Who would buy that?

I wouldn't want to be the one selling it (especially since cell/wifi based location has gotten a lot better); but that's basically how the military GPS users did it back when we were trying to keep the high-precision signal away from civilians.

I don't know how robust the system would have been against pirates, since they didn't have too much incentive to try; but you did need the appropriate hardware and crypto keys to receive the high precision data.

Why? Here on Earth? We already got GPS GLONASS Galileo and Compass. Why throw a fifth system into it? On Mars? An even bigger why? We land one vehicle on Mars once every few years. We figure out where we are pretty quickly. And then drive no more than a couple of miles from where we landed.

Look up some of the scientific uses for GPS.

Care to give some pointers? Anything to support that GPS on Mars is anything but an idiotic pointless no-go joke?

Tracking of Mars plate tectonics for starters. GPS radio occultation for another. Also you may want to read up before putting your foot in your mouth.

GNSS radio occultation studies are pointless on Mars because it has no atmosphere to speak of. We can do much better those studies on Earth.

How do you suggest we study Mars pate tectonics with GPS? I'm not even going to bother asking why on Earth we need to...

As always, one thing to consider is investment vs returns. With anything Mars related, returns will be infinitesimal compared to ANY amount of investment.

For one thing, studying Mars plate tectonics will tell us where not to put future colonies, outposts or other permanent settlements. This science work needs to get done before we can start sending humans there.

It may also help us determine the position of mineral deposits or underground aquifers (if they exist).

Having a GPS location beats the head 10 km bearing 223 degrees from the original starting position of the mars explorer, turn 132 degrees and proceed 5.5 km. Turn 45 degrees and move forward 100m.

Why? Here on Earth? We already got GPS GLONASS Galileo and Compass. Why throw a fifth system into it? On Mars? An even bigger why? We land one vehicle on Mars once every few years. We figure out where we are pretty quickly. And then drive no more than a couple of miles from where we landed.

Look up some of the scientific uses for GPS.

Care to give some pointers? Anything to support that GPS on Mars is anything but an idiotic pointless no-go joke?

Tracking of Mars plate tectonics for starters. GPS radio occultation for another. Also you may want to read up before putting your foot in your mouth.

GNSS radio occultation studies are pointless on Mars because it has no atmosphere to speak of. We can do much better those studies on Earth.

How do you suggest we study Mars pate tectonics with GPS? I'm not even going to bother asking why on Earth we need to...

As always, one thing to consider is investment vs returns. With anything Mars related, returns will be infinitesimal compared to ANY amount of investment.

For one thing, studying Mars plate tectonics will tell us where not to put future colonies, outposts or other permanent settlements. This science work needs to get done before we can start sending humans there.

It may also help us determine the position of mineral deposits or underground aquifers (if they exist).

Having a GPS location beats the head 10 km bearing 223 degrees from the original starting position of the mars explorer, turn 132 degrees and proceed 5.5 km. Turn 45 degrees and move forward 100m.

Colonies on Mars? I thought we were having a serious discussion. Never mind...

A single Falcon Heavy launch could bring multiple small satellites into orbit, and you could potentially get someone like Google to fund it, and possibly base it on it the imaging sats the startup Skybox Imaging makes, which was recently acquired by Google. Each sat is about 260 pounds, which is actually small enough to launch a few on a single Falcon 9 1.1 as it can take about 3 tons to escape velocity, versus about 16 tons for Falcon Heavy.

They would have to be heavily modified for the process but you would get a image satellite fleet, and if most of the chassis can stay the same you'd have economy of scale from the production of the earth fleet they are already working on. Radiation hardening would the the biggest issue, followed by revising the communications, and coming up with a method of inserting them into orbit around Mars. If the costs could be kept low enough it would be worth it for the PR, plus they would have Google Mars imaging, which I'm sure scientists around the world would like access too. It could be a combination of those image sats along with the internet access sats they are already working on. As long as the modifications don't overwhelm it.

Alternately you could base a fleet off of something similar to what Orbcomm just launched, or the next generation of Iridium sats, both of which have mesh networking built in. Those sats would cost a lot more though.

No doubt this plays into plans for manned Mars exploration, where high-bandwidth communications would be required.

Honestly, if we're serious about manned spaceflight (and I'm still not convinced we should be), then this is a necessary first step. Establish a dedicated, reliable, high-bandwidth interplanetary communications network, instead of piggybacking on whatever science missions are currently active.

How do you suggest we study Mars pate tectonics with GPS? I'm not even going to bother asking why on Earth we need to...

As always, one thing to consider is investment vs returns. With anything Mars related, returns will be infinitesimal compared to ANY amount of investment.

Placing a high-precision receiver (or, better, several of them) would allow us to determine if plate tectonics are still present on Mars. Right now, we don't know for certain if whatever plates may have existed have all locked up as the planet cooled or if there's still something going on. This has practical applications in understanding planetary evolution.

Receivers would also help produce more accurate maps of the planet by allowing photos to be better aligned. This would help place future landers closer to more dangerous areas instead of landing them well away in large safe zones and then having to travel long distances to reach interesting areas.